In message <201008310942.o7v9gerf025...@stenn.ntp.org>, Harlan Stenn writes: >You wrote:
>> The problem is that if multiple servers with roughly identical >> performance survive the culling, the clock selection codes >> commitment-anxiety makes i switch partner far too often. >> >> If you allow the automatic poll-rate tweaker into the game, instead >> of sensibly clamping maxpoll, it gets even more interesting. > >Has this been brought to DLM's attention? Yes, ages ago. I belive the result was a documentation note that too many partners were a bad idea. >And I assume this is not a problem with your code because you code is >designed for S1 use as opposed to higher-stratum systems that are in a >better "position" to have multiple servers, right? Remote servers in NTPns usually serve only as sanity-checks or fallbacks and the selection is purely administrative (#votes) -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.